MCC and the Church Are Part Of Each Other - Don Peters
Printer-friendly version
DownloadWhat is the ideal relationship between MCC and the church? The question itself begs additional questions: To begin, what is the “MCC” we’re referring to? The family of MCCs presently in North America or one part of MCC? Further, what is the “church” we are talking about? The church of North America which is now comprised of binational, national, provincial and regional bodies and with a growing number of churches which are only loosely connected with a larger conferences? The international church with more Mennonite / Brethren in Christ Christians outside of North America than in North America? And what of MCC’s relationship with the many Christians who do not belong to one of the traditional, supporting church conferences of MCC?
An affirmation to accompany these questions: The predominant conviction in any of the Wineskins events I’ve attended is that MCC, whatever its shape, must be closely connected to the ‘church’. MCC is not ‘para-church’. It springs out of the church. It performs part of the mission of the church. It contributes to the church’s work of reconciliation in the world. In this sense, MCC and the church are part of each other.
If the relationship between MCC and the church is complicated at present, it becomes even more complicated when we think of MCC in relationship with the global Anabaptist faith community. What might such a relationship look like?
To state the obvious, the global church will first need to want a relationship with MCC beyond what it has now. And the shape of the relationship between MCC and this global church will be affected by the church’s commitments and interests.
Last decade, the structural changes of two MCC supporting conferences profoundly affected the Anabaptist church context of North America. In short, the Mennonite Brethren and the Mennonite Church / General Conference replaced binational structures with stronger national conferences while maintaining a high level of collaboration on joint initiatives. This encourages strong local ownership, engagement in a global environment, and collaboration with international church bodies of the same conference.
It is my conviction that those organizational changes in the church should also have an effect on MCC organization and its relationship with the church in North American and globally. It suggests the potential of a number of national MCCs related to national church conferences, engaged in the domestic environment and, where engaged internationally, working in close collaboration with each other.
Don Peters
MCC Canada
Comments
And who is writing here? It might help to have some identification. Hard to speak with "anonymous."
==Gerald Shenk
THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH IS THE SAME MISSION OF MMC. THE TASK ARE DIFFERENT.
"An affirmation to accompany these questions: The predominant conviction in any of the Wineskins events I’ve attended is that MCC, whatever its shape, must be closely connected to the ‘church’. MCC is not ‘para-church’. It springs out of the church. "
Thanks for the information
As an MCC alumna, I am appreciative of the work and mission of MCC. A concern of mine has been the influence of secularism that seems to have sometimes seeped into MCC in theory and practice, at which point the "in the name of Christ" tag becomes a mere footnote to our service. I believe very much in the importance of transcending unhelpful dichotomies (for example, "doxis" and "praxis" - our practice should flow out of what we believe), so I am encouraged to see this being discussed.
Don, I just want to affirm the position you stated, and stated well -- that MCC and the church are intertwined. I'd just like to take "church" a bit further and not limit it to Mennonite/Brethern in Christ denominations in NA or globally for that matter. Before becoming MCC Reps here in Kenya, I was an Executive Pastor at an independent evangelical church in Calgary (Bethany Chapel www.bethanychapel.com) and they gladly adopted my wife and me as their missionaries, commissioning us with their blessing for service with MCC. So, when I think church I think "kingdom of God" and would like to make sure that we, MCC, allow churches whose beliefs on the main tenents of faith align with MCC's/Mennonites/BIC church partner with MCC. I have some ideas on what this partneriing might look like -- and, it is more than just accepting donations to MCC.
MCC Reps, Ron and Martha Ratzlaff, Nairobi Kenya.
I’m curious about all the energy we are spending talking about MCC’s relationship to the church. For me, this is neither the first question to ask nor a question that can be isolated away from our other relationships. If we spend time understanding and reaffirming what our mission and vision for God’s world is, and how God is inviting us to fit into God’s plan, we can then ask about our relationship to the church. Asking the questions in a different order will bring about completely different answers and, I fear, will end up excluding the world into which we are called to be light.
Don't get me wrong. I am not minimizing the importance of the church in the world or in the organization we call MCC. Yet, any conversation we begin about our relationship with the church should be in the context of an equally long and important conversation about our relationship to the world. That will move the focus to where it belongs: to God’s call on us and our relationships with those around us (both in and out of the church).
Hi Lois,
I think that the question about MCCs relationship to the church is indeed pursuing your critical question about "what our mission and vision for God's world is." Your word "our" is about MCC and the church being the vehicle for God's redemption of the world. My hope is that MCC can exponentially expand God's vision for the world by using its institutions to bring healing and reconciliation, peace and justice, for all of creation.
MCC is in a good position to increasingly devote its resources to equip and expand God's vision for the world through the church, especially in many local congregations across the world. Of course, there will be places around the world where congregations may not be present and MCC needs to also prepare partners to serve as vehicles of God's redemptive love for creation and humanity.
I welcome your continued thoughts and reflections.
Blessings to you!
Sincerely,
Rolando
HI Rolando,
I agree that the intent of the conversation is exactly as you have put it. But when I look at the conversation trail, it is less clear to me. If the focus of the discussion were truly on "what our mission and vision for God's world is", it seems to me that the discussion would not be talking about who owns MCC, or who wants to own MCC. Even the present owners would be saying "If MCC can be most effective with different owners, then we need to let go". I'm not hearing or seeing that. Rather, I hear the assumption that MCC has to be a part of the church - and so then conclusions are drawn that say that MCC has to be owned by the church (there are lots of other ways to be part of the church that haven't been seriously considered). With this assumption, the discussion continues at a comletely different level with more assumptions being made about whose definition and understanding of "church" is acceptable and whose isn't.
I agree, Rolando, that "MCC is in a good position to increasingly devote its resources to equip and expand God's vision for the world through the church" and I wish this conversation could happen within a context other than an 'ownership' model. An ownership model holds insinuations of power for those who "own" (These are often unspoken making the conversation even more difficult). A life-giving model would not see power as a limited commodity that needs to be hoarded or owned, but as an energy that can be shared (I am indebted to Irma Fast Dueck for her thinking on this as introduced to me in the article "Where two or three are gathered: power in Christian Community" - which can be downloaded from http://www.mennovision.org/Vol%205%20No%202/Dueck,%20Where%20two%20or%20three%20...). Fast Dueck concludes her article this way, "God invites us into relationship and calls us to build relationships with one another based not on domination and control but rooted in the compassionate love and vulnerability we see in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ". Our conversation about who owns MCC cannot ignore the dynamics of power that are at play. When I see and hear this in the conversation I will be convinced that those making decisions are first and foremost concerned with participating in God's work and presence in the world.
Sincerely,
Lois
Dear Lois,
Thanks for your clarification that your concern is related to the concept of "ownership." I think you articulate your concerns well.
It is exciting for me to keep exploring creative ways in which MCC can relate with the church to bring about God's purpose for humanity and all creation. I also get excited about the opportunity in Christ to fulfill the promise of Old Testament jubilee for the world.
Thanks again!
Sincerely,
Rolando
Hi Rolando,
If you are saying that my concern is the concept of ownership being a primary discussion motivator, then I agree with you. My real concern is that from my perspective (which is, admittedly distant) things other than MCCs mission have taken the energy of the ITF and have compromised the real purpose of this exercise in ways that should, minimally be acknowledged, and ideally, be corrected.
Lois